list_config_versions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return fields and the exhaustive nature ('every version'), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tightly worded sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is provided efficiently without redundant detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a single required parameter, a fully described schema, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It states what is listed, why to use it, and how it relates to update_config and delete_config. Nothing essential is missing for correct tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'slug' has a clear schema description: 'Configuration slug to list versions for.' The description does not add beyond the schema, but with full coverage the schema carries the burden effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action: 'List every version of a config' with explicit returned fields (version_id, structured config payload, updater, timestamp). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_configs by focusing on versions of a single config rather than a list of configs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to audit history or compare revisions before update_config or delete_config.' This gives the agent a concrete decision rule and connects it to the related mutation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.